A Republican legislator is unhappy the words, “so help me God,” have been dropped as Iowa lawmakers recite the oath of office to begin a new term in the legislature.
Representative Dawn Pettingill of Mount Auburn raised the objection after two new lawmakers were sworn in in the Iowa House in opening ceremonies earlier today. She says there’s a long tradition of appealing to the divine when taking office in Iowa.
“It has been said in the oath of office since 1939 here in Iowa and it’s included in the oath for federal senators and congressman,” Pettingill says. “I think we should have had a discussion before it was removed.”
Pettingill didn’t notice the change last year when all 100 newly-elected members of the Iowa House were sworn in using an oath without the words: “so help me, God.” Mark Bransgaard, the chief clerk of the House, says there was no conscious decision to drop the phrase.
“I didn’t have a copy of the oath so I went to the constitution and copied it, unawares that we’ve said, ’so help me God’ in the past,” Bransgaard says. “I mean, we can go back to saying that if the members choose to do that.”
Representative Pettengill took matters into her own hands and asked for time to speak on the House floor today so she could restate her oath and add: “so help me God.” Pettingill plans to sponsor a resolution to try to put that phrase in the oath for good.
This is the section of the Iowa Constitution outlining the oath of office members of the legislature are to recite:
Oath of members. SEC. 32. Members of the general assembly shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear, or affirm, (as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Iowa, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of senator, (or representative, as the case may be,) according to the best of my ability.” And members of the general assembly are hereby empowered to administer to each other the said oath or affirmation.
[end article]
Lawmaker Dawn Pettingill may want to do some additional research before sponsoring "a resolution to try to put that phrase in the oath for good," because according to the 1857 Constitution of the State of Iowa, Article I, Section 5 that type of change would require a constitutional overhaul:
SEC. 4. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office, or public trust, and no person shall be deprived of any of his rights, privileges, or capacities, or disqualified from the performance of any of his public or private duties, ... in consequence of his opinions on the subject of religion, ... .
In a previous blog I pointed out how authors Kramnick and Moore were right to single out Utah as having a "unique State Constitution." I guess I need to take that back. The Iowa Constitution apparently protects religious liberty, as spelled out in Article I Section 4, just as well. The big differences between the two states seems to be that Utah office holders are aware of what their constitution says regarding the addition of "so help me God" to the end of their oath.
27 comments:
I agree that the legislators should not be required to say SHMG. They should also not be deprived of the opportunity to say those words after the oath, if they wish to do so.
Brian, that goes without saying. The issue, as in the case of the presidential oath, is just how the oath is administered. What is surprising about Iowa is the state legislators appeared to have chosen to follow, willy - nilly, a non-legislated protocol.
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:
---Preamble to Iowa state constitution
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.
---Preamble to Utah state constitution
The name of God, or some variation of deity, is in 48 [or so] of the 50 state constitutions.
"So help me God" is used in
AL
CT
FL
KY
LA
ME
MA
MS
MT
NV
NH
NC
ND
RI
SC
TX
VT
VA (optional)
...and American Samoa.
http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html
Lots of de-Godding to do out there. Best get busy. So much God, so little time.
Tom, I don't see your point, or why you chose to create a lengthy vertical list of states. There's no reason to remove God-acknowledgements from state constitutions. The point is that Iowa should recognize: "[North Carolina and] [s]ix other states have provisions outlawing atheists in public office. The North Carolina clause was in the state constitution when it was drafted in 1868. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that states were prohibited under the U.S. Constitution from requiring a religious test to serve in office. The court ruled in favor of an atheist in Maryland seeking to serve as a notary public." (See December 20, 2009 article, Councilman under fire for atheism by David Zucchino.
When it comes to the current 100 Iowa legislators they need to figure out whether they, in their oath, are willing to support a tradition of equal opporunity or not.
I reckon you were googling "So help me God" and turned up this little controversy, which is going nowhere anyway. Another one for the trivia pile.
Just being helpful, Ray. Giving you some leads on some more windmills to tilt at. You now have a whole list of states to go after with your SHMG thing, which represents pretty much 100% of your contributions to this blog.
"Tradition of equal opportunity?" I happen to agree with that on its face, but it has nothing to do with religion and the Founding. Religion was left to the states. In a very small way, it still is. But get to work---according to you, or your former or current ally Michael Newdow---every mention of God violates the "tradition of equal opportunity."
So let's just get real, Ray. You're having your fun with this blog, I'm having some fun with you, and now you're having a cow.
Go for it, man. Erase God from the American ethos. That's what you're really up to, let's just be honest with each other for once.
Surely you don't think our estimable readers can't see through all this. It's transparent.
Tom, stop suggesting what you think I should be doing with my time. If you want to advertise your views of what Michael Newdow is trying to accomplish, then please do it elsewhere.
You say religion was left to the states. That's true for the reason that slavery was left to the states, since the federal government, at least before the the Civil War, had neither the necessary muscle nor dedication to defend religious freedom against state tyranny. You might want to read about what happened to the Mormons and Joseph Smith first in Missouri and then Illinois while the federal gov't just watched to see what I'm talking about.
I'm quite happy to let the reader decide as to what is transparent. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know. As for myself, the (admittedly romantic Mormon) impression I've drawn from my post is that Utah civil servants who swear to their oath, in contrast to Iowa State Representative Pettengill, appear to be more concerned with walking the walk than talking the talk.
“It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths. Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today.” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 35–36 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
Tom, what does O'Connor's opinion have to do with Iowa's decision to ignore their constitutional oath and arbitrarily implement a religious test oath? (Oh yeah, can you please stay on topic.)
Please tell me whether O'Connor is a spokesperson for God -- whatever God that is? (Is it anything like one of those national Roman gods?) In contrast to O'Connor's opinion, the Biblical God didn't grant humankind a copyright as how to use the proper noun for His Name? A national god is a national god, and no amount of federal legislation or judicial opinions can change the meaning of idolatry as defined by the Bible, and in my book personal worship is what sustains the individual.
Regarding O’Connor's comment ...
“It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths. Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today.” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 35–36 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
I don't think she is being entirely fair.
The Founder's nation didn't include the symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths which Newdow is objecting to ... and yet the nation's religious freedoms have been sustained.
That's not to assert that these symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths weren't present in the Nation's states, or that all religious symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths were absent at the federal level.
It would be interesting to examine the religious symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths that were present during the nations infancy and compare with those present today.
Does anyone know where such comparison might be found?
Here's a link to the text of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the 1961 Supreme Court opinion which held that states can't impose religious tests for public office.
Please tell me whether O'Connor is a spokesperson for God -- whatever God that is?
Heh. I'm still just having fun with you, Ray. I'm not an O'Connor fan.
However, I do think Mr. Newdow and likely yourself are arguing for a radical secularism like the French
laïcité and I think destroying America's Founding ethos is a very bad idea, speaking as a student of political philosophy.
And so, I enjoy when you lose, which I hope continues to be often.
__________
Yes, Eric, I'm familiar with Torcaso of course. However, it's pinned on the 14th Amendment, which did not yet exist at the Founding.
I certainly don't advocate religious tests in 2010. However, see my remarks to Mr. Soller above.
Tom, only time will tell who's the mongoose and who's the snake in this game of yours.
Ray, I'm not playing a game atall. I fully participate on the blog, on all subjects, with all comers.
It's when somebody swoops in with the narrowest of arguments and legalities that I engage their game. Picking on some obscure state legislator on a silly argument that's going nowhere in her state is a game, a partisan hand-grenade and then a quick exit.
The larger truth is that religion was left to the states, and as evidenced by 48 or so of their 50 state constitutions, the One Providential [Almighty] God was considered a reality, not a religious or philosophical proposition among many other equally valid ones, nor was that considered an "establishment" of religion contra the First Amendment.
That's not a game. And it is the subject.
It's when some folks natter on that their individual right to "not feel excluded" requires the erasure of this God from our polity that I engage them on that level.
I'm all for individual conscience [as were the Founders], a right to a "conscientious objection," and support all efforts toward a reasonable accommodation of that objection. But it's those folks who exclude themselves in the first place.
And the natural conclusion of such natterings is that somehow the 14th Amendment makes the acknowledgment of the Almighty as a reality in the state constitutions unconstitutional.
I'm not changing the subject atall, nor playing a game, which is why I brought up these state constitutions here. But since I don't expect a genuine engagement on this point, I simply roll it out for the general [and gentle] reader to connect the dots.
I admit I don't particularly go in for 14th amendment discussions, as they apply to a period well after the Founding and don't fall under the purview and purpose of this blog. I do admit a cynicism that the 14th can even be discussed intelligently or with any effect: 20th and 21st century jurisprudence can and will make the 14th say almost anything it wants, under the theory and "evolving" meaning of "liberty."
And since Planned Parenthood v. Casey [1992], which held
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
We have the Supreme Court officially replacing the notion of an objective reality [for example, that the One Providential God exists] with a subjective one. The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the power to redefine America's ethos and philosophy, replacing the Founding's agreement on an objective reality with 20th century existentialism! [Relativism, subjectivism, nihilism, call it what you will.]
Oh, I'm plenty prepared to discuss the issue without games, Ray. But since my invitations go unanswered, I have a little fun in the process.
TVD wrote:
Heh. I'm still just having fun with you, Ray.
Don't worry, Ray. I was developing the argument and text for use on another blog.
We both knew you wouldn't actually engage the larger thesis and argument. But I just wanted to let you---and the gentle reader---know I know.
;-}
Tom, in your opinion what is the larger thesis?
I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious. From what I've read, I have no clue :-(
Ben, I really thought I clearly identified it. The first two paragraphs were written to Ray as a fellow human being with whom I'm in conflict, but hope becomes a friend someday. The last paragraph too, as well as as my following snarky response to his following snarky response.
I took the below part of the text and used it on another blog, which was my intention in drafting it here while playing games with Ray. I'm really not interested in anymore snarkiness, had enough for one day. This is the thesis:
The larger truth is that religion was left to the states, and as evidenced by 48 or so of their 50 state constitutions, the One Providential [Almighty] God was considered a reality, not a religious or philosophical proposition among many other equally valid ones, nor was that considered an "establishment" of religion contra the First Amendment.
That's not a game. And it is the subject.
It's when some folks natter on that their individual right to "not feel excluded" requires the erasure of this God from our polity that I engage them on that level.
I'm all for individual conscience [as were the Founders], a right to a "conscientious objection," and support all efforts toward a reasonable accommodation of that objection. But it's those folks who exclude themselves in the first place.
And the natural conclusion of such natterings is that somehow the 14th Amendment makes the acknowledgment of the Almighty as a reality in the state constitutions unconstitutional.
I'm not changing the subject atall, nor playing a game, which is why I brought up these state constitutions here. But since I don't expect a genuine engagement on this point, I simply roll it out for the general [and gentle] reader to connect the dots.
I admit I don't particularly go in for 14th amendment discussions, as they apply to a period well after the Founding and don't fall under the purview and purpose of this blog. I do admit a cynicism that the 14th can even be discussed intelligently or with any effect: 20th and 21st century jurisprudence can and will make the 14th say almost anything it wants, under the theory and "evolving" meaning of "liberty."
And since Planned Parenthood v. Casey [1992], which held
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
We have the Supreme Court officially replacing the notion of an objective reality [for example, that the One Providential God exists] with a subjective one. The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the power to redefine America's ethos and philosophy, replacing the Founding's agreement on an objective reality with 20th century existentialism! [Relativism, subjectivism, nihilism, call it what you will.]
Tom, thanks for the explanation. I must admit your approach to issues related to the 14th confuse me, and confounds my ability to follow your line of thought.
My perspective is that what the states did during the founding period is not relevant with regards to the constitution and its 1st amendment. What is relevant (imo) is how the 1st amendment was understood to apply to the federal government.
As the 14th is understood to incorporate the religious clauses of the 1st amendment, I think it reasonable to apply the same understanding the local and state governments today. If we are to avoid the 14th amendment, then I think we must avoid discussions regarding the practices of state and local governments today, and any comparison to the practices of state and local governments prior to the 14th (comparison to the practices of the federal government during the founding is appropriate as many of the same laws now apply).
So imo, the religious symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths the states governments incorporated during the founding has no legal bearing on the religious symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths of today's federal government … and due to the 14th, I think they have little bearing on the religious symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths of today's state and local governments.
Re: "It's when some folks natter on that their individual right to "not feel excluded" requires the erasure of this God from our polity that I engage them on that level."
The prominent point, for me, is whether or not the actions of the government explicitly or implicitly restrain the liberty of individuals who do not favor particular religious establishments. A good example is the standard way in which the pledge is currently administrated. If a student chooses to drop the religious phrase, the standard prescription is to remove the individual from participating in this patriotic exercise (as if theistic belief is a prerequisite for patriotism).
Also the inclusion of “so help me God”, to an oath of office, concerns for me. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but I would expect this to result in atheists lying about their faith, or in banning atheists from holding office. Regarding politicians lying, perhaps I shouldn't be so bothered as lying and politics appears to be synonymous. However, restraining individuals from serving their nation based upon their personal religious convictions, and/or theistic beliefs, is (I think) a violation of the constitutions religious protections (1st amendment and Article IV, Sec 3).
So that I'm not misunderstood, I have no objection to citizens voting for, or against, candidates for ideological or religious reasons. However, the government should not actively promote such behavior.
Re: "symbols, songs, mottoes"
I do think it proper to question the appropriateness of such practices by examining the intentions and actions of those who served during the founding period. The intent and acts I speak of would be limited to the federal government of the founding period, as the constitution had no effect on such actions by the states.
However, I have no compelling objections to "In God We Trust" on our currency, or to the religious references in songs, provided they are not leveraged to compromise the liberty of individuals of other religious/theistic convictions.
Re: "objective reality"
I don't think the assertion "that One Providential God exists" is objective. It is opinion, and therefore, subjective. What I think is an objective reality "that One Providential God exists" is a better description of the religious opinions of the founders than the assertion they believed in the Christian God of the God of Deism. From your prior comments, I assume that was also what you intended?
I'm a bit long winded today, so perhaps here is a good place to stop.
Well, again, Ben, I return to original argument, and this is the core of it:
The larger truth is that religion was left to the states, and as evidenced by 48 or so of their 50 state constitutions, the One Providential [Almighty] God was considered a reality, not a religious or philosophical proposition among many other equally valid ones, nor was that considered an "establishment" of religion contra the First Amendment.
The claim of the existence of God being an objective reality is simply a fact; matters such as the divinity of Jesus were what was put in the "religion" category, left to the individual conscience, and Congress banned by the First Amendment on decreeing such things as being equally objective reality.
There is still a thread of that left in contemporary jurisprudence [Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 35–36 ], although it's admittedly on the ropes.
I agree the claim is an objective reality. It is the existence of God that I'd qualify as subjective.
I'm uncertain if we are mixing words and context or if we are applying different definitions to objective.
Regarding religion, I agree that the constitution did separate the federal government, of the founding, from it and left it up to the states to decide how they'd handle the religious liberty of their citizens.
The problem with applying these intentions of the founders to the context of today is that we'd have to ignore the 14th amendment. With the 14th amendment, the constitutional protections or religious liberty presently apply to all forms of our government (federal, state, and local).
Thus, I think it necessary to be a bit abstract. And begin with the understanding that the ratifiers of the 14th are understood to have intended that the constitutional protections of religious liberty are to be applied to all forms of government (federal, state, and local). Thus, the question becomes how the founders understood the constitutional protections of religious liberty restrained the federal government, of their time. and apply those same restraints to the state and local government of today.
Did the ratification of the 14th Amendment make the acknowledgment of God as a reality in almost every state constitution unconstitutional?
I argue that's absurd.
Would the 14th have been ratified if they knew that's what it would one day require?
Again, I think it's absurd to say it would've.
Does the text anywhere indicate that this would be necessary?
No.
Is it faithful to the constitutional process to say the 14th requires God be dropped, some 140 years later?
I say, again, absurd.
The "incorporation" of the first [and first 8] amendments is not a closed book just yet. In fact, the McDonald case about incorporating the 2nd Amendment against state and local gun laws is at the Supreme Court as we speak. Jonathan Rowe is dealing with the issue right now, over at PL, which is still kicking.
http://positiveliberty.com/2010/02/hamburgers-dilemma-and-mine.html
But I still think you're not quite getting my point that in the Founding era [and for many years after], the existence of God was not in question as a reality, nor treated as a matter of an establishment of "religion."
[I of course would never argue for the purposes of this blog that God exists (or doesn't)---that's above our pay grade; our concern is what the Founding era believed.]
Re: " Did the ratification of the 14th Amendment make the acknowledgment of God as a reality in almost every state constitution unconstitutional.
So I'm not misunderstood, I'm not arguing against symbolic religious references (i.e. Ceremonial Deism). My concerns are with respect to religious tests/qualifications for holding public office and/or variance in the treatment of citizens due to their religious convictions, and it is my understanding that all the religious tests and qualifications written into state constitutions are no longer legally valid.
With regards to symbolic mentions of God, I see no legal standing for removing those references, and as they are popular I think it improper to suggest such be done. Thus, I agree such a suggestion is absurd.
Re: "the existence of God was not in question as a reality, nor treated as a matter of an establishment of "religion.""
Actually, that is what I had first thought you were getting at. I agree that few (if any) in the founder's generation had serious reservations about the existence of a God. However, I do think that (collectively) the founders had differing opinions on the characteristics of God. So while the belief in God was near universal, I don't think it proper to describe the belief as objective (mind-independent).
If I may be permitted to take a tangent ... I like your description of the founder's God as the God of Providence. That is an aspect of God that was nearly universal among the founders.
Well, thx, Ben. Even Paine mentions Providence several times.
I had assumed that Paine subscribed to a deist-blind watchmaker-absent God, but even that turned out not to be true upon further research.
I'm not a fan of the "ceremonial deism" concept, which I believe was championed by [ta-da!] Sandra Day O'Connor, and is an contrahistorical legal dodge. I think the Founders' Providence was much more than that, for reasons given, which even your agreeable atheist self seems to allow.
However, in this day and age after Everson, "ceremonial deism" is probably as much as a theist can reasonable hope for, that the 14th Amendment doesn't require we climb to the top of the Washington Monument and scratch out "Laus Deo."
As for the differences between the Founders about various characteristics of God, I argue they filed those differences in a separate folder marked "RELIGION" and are precisely what the First Amendment was written to address.
This turned into an enlightening [hehe] discussion afterall. Thx, man.
And if "objective" is a troublesome adjective, Ben, the argument that they believed "God is a reality," not a matter of opinion, works fine without the word.
In our 21st century, the existence of God is considered a matter of opinion. Which is fine, but if we want to understand the Founding as it understood itself, which is the proper way to do history, then we must understand their view of reality.
Unlike the 21st century, their view was that there's more to reality than what we can taste, see, and measure. On this they all---even Paine and Jefferson---agreed.
Tom wrote, The larger truth is that religion was left to the states.
Please explain how that applies to the issues Newdow is trying to resolve at the federal level. The states (or the founding fathers) didn't adopt a religious national motto, states didn't legislate to put that motto on all U. S. currency, and states didn't alter the pledge of allegiance. Unless, you're suggesting that the federal government shouldn't be in the religion business at all.
If you've been following the Newdow trail you'd know that his SHMG oral argument was heard in DC District Court on Dec. 15, 2009. He, beforehand, filed an emergency motion to have the court abstain from opening with its customary pronouncement. Despite Newdow's motion, the court opened with the cry “God save the United States and this Honorable Court,” a practice which has not been validated as a matter of law.
Now, this is where I get lost, because when Obama requested that CJ Roberts accomodate his personal preference to add the traditional religious codicil to the presidential oath that request was respected, but when Newdow requested that Judge Reggie Walton accomodate his personal preference that request was ignored.
It has been my experience that the watchmaker God isn't representative of the God of Deism. My understanding is that Deists appear (to me) to reject the doctrines of organized religions, but embrace a supernatural God whose personality is concerned with justice and truth (I think there is a lot of overlap between Unitarians and Deists).
Spinoza's God is a better fit for the watchmaker, or a natural theology.
Ray, you haven't responded directly to anything I wrote, so this isn't a discussion. Your points were asked and answered infra.
I'm glad the court rejected Newdow's plea to pitch "God save this court." Ceremonial deism is not an establishment of religion and never was.
_________________
Yes, Ben, I expected to find Spinoza's god in the Founding but never did. But I believe historians link him to British deism, which I can't find in the Founding either. My understanding is that Hume had killed such "natural religion" by 1750 or so.
Post a Comment